Recommendations for a good cheap 135-300mm MF glass

...Having a look now and it seems the A 200/4 is probably what I am after, it's more or less a K200/4 with the A setting which makes it a bit more flexible for me in a shoot. I can jump straight into f5.6 like I do with the K yet be in Av mode and perhaps have better contrast and colours due to coating. Hopefully a copy won't be too expensive to come by...

The A200/4 has a little mystery to it. The lens data says it's different than the M, 6 elements in 6 groups instead of 5 groups for the M. The minimum focus distance is 1.9m, vs. 2.0m for the M. User comments suggest the K is good, the M is OK, and the A is some degree better, but nowhere near as common. The M and A versions have more aperture blades than the K and are smaller and lighter.

I'd love to see a detailed test quantifying the exact differences. For me, I know the K is too big, M or K are not as easy to use, I saw the A at a good price ($75 US) and bought it. If they were all on a shelf in front of me, I'd only use the A because of size, weight and function. I see nothing wrong with the images so I suspect the detailed comparison would show one of them is 10% sharper wide open than the rest and that all goes out the window when I miss focus.

If you sell the K200/4, an A200/4 shouldn't be that much more. Tell everyone the K is 10% sharper.

Edit: To give a slightly more informed opinion, I put the lens on a K-30 and happened to stumble on this hawk about 10 feet/3m away. I had enough time to switch to f8, focus and take two shots. I don't think the focus is quite right and shutter is 1/45 so it's a long way from perfect, but fun anyway.

You should seriously consider the Rokinon 135/2. It is so good even wide open that it is hard to believe and is actually an A lens, easy to use and focus.

Yes. I had the Samyang 85/1.4 and it produced a shot that saw me gain a submission into the Pentaxian Yearbook. Good glass indeed. My only issue is at 85 and 135 these are (future proofing here) 'portrait' lenses and thus with how I work I will need AF at these ranges as I often shoot that kind of flow with off camera flash handheld. I think @Sandy's recommendation for the FA 135 makes better sense, even if the IQ is a little lower, because the additional benefits of flash work overall will produce better images for me. I think $499 is quite a lot for MF glass as well, and I know now from experience nailing 1.4 with a 85 is bloody tricky, so I'm guessing the same could be said for the f2 and 135.
Really my purpose with a 200 is more natural light (too far for flash now), and not 'real' work (might snap kangaroos and the like with it etc, not proper portrait work etc).

Originally posted by TwoUptons

I traded a M200 f4 for an A200 f4, and that was a big step forward.
Optically, it seems a little better, though it's close enough to be well within the bounds of sample variation.
And while usable, it isn't great wide open...

The TAv possibilities are nice, as is P-TTL flash.
Put those together with a Raynox closeup adapter, and it does some really cool macro work...

I paid less than US$100 for mine, shipped from Japan.

-Eric

Thanks for the info.

Originally posted by D1N0

SMC Pentax-A 70-210mm F4.

Funny you should mention this one as one is selling on Gumtree for $150AUD nearby. How does this compare with the A200 I wonder? What I'm reading is you (once again) need to get into f5.6-8 at a minimum to produce shots worth taking, making low light work pretty much out of the question. I'm now scratching my head as to just keep saving for a 2.8 of some sorts...

Originally posted by Just1MoreDave

The A200/4 has a little mystery to it. The lens data says it's different than the M, 6 elements in 6 groups instead of 5 groups for the M. The minimum focus distance is 1.9m, vs. 2.0m for the M. User comments suggest the K is good, the M is OK, and the A is some degree better, but nowhere near as common. The M and A versions have more aperture blades than the K and are smaller and lighter.

I'd love to see a detailed test quantifying the exact differences. For me, I know the K is too big, M or K are not as easy to use, I saw the A at a good price ($75 US) and bought it. If they were all on a shelf in front of me, I'd only use the A because of size, weight and function. I see nothing wrong with the images so I suspect the detailed comparison would show one of them is 10% sharper wide open than the rest and that all goes out the window when I miss focus.

If you sell the K200/4, an A200/4 shouldn't be that much more. Tell everyone the K is 10% sharper.

Edit: To give a slightly more informed opinion, I put the lens on a K-30 and happened to stumble on this hawk about 10 feet/3m away. I had enough time to switch to f8, focus and take two shots. I don't think the focus is quite right and shutter is 1/45 so it's a long way from perfect, but fun anyway.

Thanks for that. I just have to mull some things over, perhaps save some more $$ for something faster. I wouldn't mind a A setting f2.8 lens that performs poorly wide open but once stopped down to 3.5 or 4 it performs excellently, in this regard I would be happy with something that could be used in Av mode and I would just ignore the wider open apertures indefinitely.

---------- Post added 09-12-19 at 07:04 AM ----------

Originally posted by clickclick

For what it's worth, I have the A* 200/2.8 and the A* 300/4. I really like the 200. The 300 isn't bad, but the 200 is really sharp. Nice lens. Might be worth looking for a copy.

The A * 200 does look good, however I cannot understand its pricing when a DA* 200 has all the bells and whistles and effectively is similar priced... I guess it's a status thing, to own an older A setting * rated lens?

Originally posted by Serkevan

Have you tried using Exposure compensation at +2 or so to "trick" AV mode? It should work decently (I have used it with my M 135/3.5 to shoot AV at 5.6 and I was laughing like a mad scientist discovering a new superweapon) but I would check that the compensation values don't change because of stop-down non-linearity.

I'm kinda confused by this! I've never tried, I mean I typically have my exposure compensation at some value in Manual or Av mode, but I never thought that shifting it to something else would somehow make the aperture actually change for the shot?! Huh... that's bizarre.

I'm kinda confused by this! I've never tried, I mean I typically have my exposure compensation at some value in Manual or Av mode, but I never thought that shifting it to something else would somehow make the aperture actually change for the shot?! Huh... that's bizarre.

Scratch that, I just double checked and the aperture doesn't change at all... I was probably just overexposing when I tried it . I'll edit my previous post. Gosh, am I embarrassed.